Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Noticed The Difference?  
User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2249 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

Hey guys,

I've made a small change to photo database. It's nothing much but effects all photos on Airliners.net.

Check the photo database and see if you can notice it...

Screeners may not participate Big grin


Cheers,
Johan



Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
54 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1917 times:

Sneaky. I can't remember what the old page looked like.

Looks like a little dot box around the image ?


User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1861 times:

Doesn't seem to have helped my Hit ratio  Wink/being sarcastic

User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1852 times:

Maybe it is the copyright Glenn Alderton (insert actual Photographer)

Was that there before


User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1839 times:

Or am I in the wrong area and now it is the number of hits per average on photo at the top and working its way down to the lowest etc.

User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 5, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1887 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

You're not very close I'm afraid. Keep trying though  Big grin

/ Johan



Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1824 times:

Strewth

 Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offline174thfwff From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1819 times:

I KNOW!!!!

At the bottom of the webpage it says copiewright ....

At the bottom of http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=177185


Photo Copyright © Andrew Hunt, all rights reserved. More info.

This page is a part of Airliners.net


User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1814 times:

Is it something we can see or is it hidden like an imbedded watermark

User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1807 times:

Nah I said that

User currently offlineBodobodo From Canada, joined May 2000, 553 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

Ok, I'll take a stab at this. I'll take 3 guesses with the most likely first.

1)Better quality thumbnails? I'm probably imagining it but perhaps the colours or resamling of the thumbnails better represents the originals?

2)Something else about the thumbnails, possibly the framing of them?

3)Nothing is different and this is a experiment that you are doing for a psychology class?

Time to get some sleep.

Cheers,
Felix


User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1780 times:

OH No psyched outt again.

But lets see who doesn't post and suspect them of screeners status  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Nothing lost then  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineIflycoach From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1015 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1779 times:

Were you able to see the whole explenation of the photo on the thumbnail page before?

User currently offline174thfwff From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1760 times:

2 more shots...

here is one of them...

the photo id and views is above the thumbnail?


User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 18
Reply 14, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1761 times:

I see nothing at all..

Absolutely no change!!

Even the queue lines are no change.. harharhar..
jk--

Bo



Chance favors the prepared mind.
User currently offlineIflycoach From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1015 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1751 times:

I have to agree with the views on the thumbnails, I never remember those.

User currently offlineWillL From Australia, joined May 2001, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1739 times:

I think the thumbnails have been sharpend

User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1778 times:

"Send as a postcard" tab under the comment part of the photo (on the big version), and under the thumbnail on the regular page.

Justin


User currently offlineThomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 4013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1755 times:

I don't know about that Dazed.

I am inclined to agree with post saying that the tumbnails have been improved. For instance, I have a shot of a CO 757 landing, while the shot is excellent in as far as the image quality is concerned, but the thumbnail had always looked, well.....crappy! Now there is a noticiable diffrence with this thumbnail.

Thomas



"Show me the Braniffs"
User currently offlineChrisKSDF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1738 times:

Seems that the thumbnails are in .JPG format now, instead of .GIF, which has significantly improved the quality.

Good job Johan.  Smile

Chris


User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1726 times:

More compression on the thumbnails and possibly the full size photos?

User currently offlineC72 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1728 times:

is it the link for "distinct" views...little pop up if you click distinct???

User currently offlineCathay111 From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 55 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 1717 times:

It's the thumbnails, for sure! As soon as I opened the page the photos jumped out at me in a very clear manner now and not in the dull and dotty way that they did before!

CM


User currently offlineAircanon From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 238 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 1705 times:

We´ve got it!!!

It´s the thumbnails. They used to be gif´s now they are jpeg´s and therefore a better quality.

Guess there are quite a few winners on this quiz. We´ll have to split the prize! Wat was it? hehe Big grin

uuuhhh... What am i doing here? It´s late... have to get to work!  Smokin cool

Edwin (AirCanon)


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 24, posted (13 years 4 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 1701 times:

The thumbnails have changed from GIF to JPG.
See the difference
JPG:

GIF:

Speaking for myself i dont see a difference in the thumbnails, but the amount of diskspace saved is a huuuuuge one. The gif is 17526 Bytes in size and the jpg is only 4963 Bytes in size. So lets calculate:
170000 photos in the database. Lets assume around 10000 Bytes are saved when storing the thumbnails as jpg.s. That equals in a saved disk space of about 1.700.000.000 (Read 1,7 Gigabytes).

By the way. Does this mean the gif are going to disappear very soon? I tried to do the same with my latest uploads, but the gif was not available, its only on the system for older uploads.
Peter



-
25 Gerardo : Whatever it is, on the main search page (front page of Airliners.net) I can't search for a special airline anymore. Is it that, Johan? (I hope not....
26 Gerardo : .... and after a reload, it works again. Thanks, my little computer, for fooling me. Ignore my previous post, folks. Sorry!! Gerardo
27 ADG : Glenn, Don't you have stuff to do other than hanging out in the forum? ADG
28 Davus : Definately............. The thumbnails used to be an interlaces gif format......meaning they slowly 'fade in'..... now they are a progressive jpeg. Me
29 SashA : I thought thumbnails were always JPGs... Maybe images started loading faster due to new compression scripts?
30 Cfalk : Download times of the thumbnails are MUCH faster. Now I can modify my normal number of thumbnails per page to 120 without timing out. Quality is bette
31 Ckw : Wow, my thumbnails are looking MUCH better (something like the actual picture now). I had noticed in the past that some people's thumbnails looked qui
32 Post contains images EGGD : haha me too Charles! I used to have to do it 15 per page on my 56k connection, now i can do alot more at once Thanks alot Johan! Cheers Dan
33 EGGD : How about the advanced search? I don't know how long it has been like this but it is sooooo much easier and a hell of alot better! Cheers Dan
34 Post contains images Glenn : What's your problem ADG Can't I hang out where I like
35 Sonic99 : Something's been done with the pics, that's for sure. Downloads are much faster and the pics seem sharper. Sonic99
36 Post contains images Administrator : Well, that was a bit more difficult than I anticipated. The first really close guess was by Bodobodo who noticed a slight increase in thumbnail qualit
37 Sonic99 : Johan, The search result pages and new additions pages load up much faster than before (heck this applies to all pages with thumbnails). From what I'
38 Post contains images Henryjr : Thanks Johan! Really great improvement. I have seen just better thumbnails so far! This site is getting better and better everyday! Regards, Henry Jr
39 Blackened : I noticed it cause I'm running the PC at 16bit right now so you can see the borders between the colors in the jpg picture. The old gifs didn't have th
40 BO__einG : Look at Examples: Air Canada Thumbnails.. What when the maple leaf used to be a big red blob for some pictures. as I recall. This Jpeg certainly fixed
41 Post contains images Nscaler : Johan, Glad that you have implemented the jpg instead of the gif into the database. However, I have noticed especially with photos showing a lot of bl
42 Blackened : What you mean is not the jpg compression: It's your screen setting. Try 32bit and both pictures will look more or less the same. If you're running at
43 Cfalk : As I recall, JPEG only supports up to 24-bit color, so more than that will be overkill (on this site anyway). But you are right Blackened, if you are
44 Post contains images Sonic99 : I'm running my system with 16-bit colour and I do notice the difference Saul mentions - it seems only in cases where there is a strong contrast betwee
45 Post contains images Aer Lingus : Sorry to be such an ass but I did notice this when checking my own photos: NEW JPEG VERSION OLD GIF VERSION NEW JPEG VERSION OLD GIF VERSION The new f
46 Post contains images Administrator : Hello, Thank you for your comments. I agree the quality of the JPEG versions of the photos posted by Nscaler and Aer Lingus seem to be of lower than t
47 Administrator : Oh and one more thing. I've tried this with 16bit color and it looks quite bad. JPEG really shines when you use 24bit color or higher. GIF, that is a
48 DutchAir : Hi Johan and others, I think the 75 quality is worth the extra file size, because at 37 and 50 you can see too much jpg compression in my opinion. (I
49 Sunilgupta : I also feel that the quality of 75 is worth the extra file size. You are still saving about 50% of the file size as compaired to the GIF. Sunil
50 Aer Lingus : Johan, I took your advice ans changed my monitor settings. They were at 16 bit and 1024x768 so I changed it to 32 bit and it looked even worse; I was
51 Aircanon : There has definitly been a huge improvement switching from the gif to the jpeg thumbnails as i can notice here on my CRT. At the present i am using 12
52 Post contains images USAir_757 : I only notice one thing...SPEED!!! The thumbnails load so much faster on my cyber-slug(aka 33.6 modem). Thanks lots Johan. Cullen
53 Sonic99 : Johan, Over the last few days I've changed screen resolutions, colour depth, downloaded new drivers - essentially did anything to try and witness this
54 Jan Mogren : I would prefer the jpg's a bit less compressed. /JM
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What's The Difference? posted Thu Jan 26 2006 18:37:52 by Airimages
What Is The Difference? posted Thu Dec 8 2005 15:19:41 by Nirmalmakadia
Spot The Difference posted Fri Aug 13 2004 17:27:55 by Malandan
Spot The Difference - Kerry/Edwards 757 posted Thu Aug 5 2004 17:41:45 by AWspicious
Dslr 3mp V. Digi 3mp..... Why The Difference? posted Mon Jun 21 2004 15:53:11 by MartinairYYZ
Anyone Can Tell Me The Difference? posted Sat Oct 26 2002 15:57:41 by Danny
Where's The Difference? posted Thu Oct 24 2002 12:34:04 by Fly-K
Perfect Light Makes All The Difference posted Sat Sep 21 2002 14:50:09 by Tappan
This Is The Difference Between 200-400-800 ISO posted Wed Jul 10 2002 21:54:07 by BA777
Digital And Optical Zoom? - The Difference? posted Fri Sep 7 2001 09:18:52 by LGW